You fix the budget

[mook]

An interesting exercise I think everyone who votes should have to go through:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ew/deficits-graphic.html?src=me&ref=generalIfhttp://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?src=me&ref=general

If nothing else, it should make abundantly clear that anybody who talks about "ending earmarks" as a key part of any solution is just being silly.

 

[Denny Crane]

I already did this exercise.

1) Cut civilian and civilian/military workforce by 1M. Saves $125B
2) Completely repeal the Bush/Republican Medicare Prescription Drug Program. Saves $360B.
3) Bring the troops home and cut military spending by 1/3. Saves at least $300B.
4) Eliminate TARP spending, saves $368B.

This cuts the deficit to about $300B, which we can grow our way out of in 5 years if we hold the line on new spending.

Conservatives see their ox gored - military.
Liberals see their ox gored - prescription drug program.
The criminals see their ox gored - no more blank check/TARP.

No new taxes.

 

[Natebishop3]

I already did this exercise.

1) Cut civilian and civilian/military workforce by 1M. Saves $125B
2) Completely repeal the Bush/Republican Medicare Prescription Drug Program. Saves $360B.
3) Bring the troops home and cut military spending by 1/3. Saves at least $300B.
4) Eliminate TARP spending, saves $368B.

This cuts the deficit to about $300B, which we can grow our way out of in 5 years if we hold the line on new spending.

Conservatives see their ox gored - military.
Liberals see their ox gored - prescription drug program.
The criminals see their ox gored - no more blank check/TARP.

No new taxes.

I'm torn, but I think I would lean towards recalling all our troops and closing our bases around the globe. If the world does not appreciate our help, then let our help cease to exist. That also goes for monetary help. We provide billions in aid around the globe (especially in Israel), and if that support is not appreciated, so be it.

I would like to see a shift in our military. Keep the Navy and the Air Force the way it is, but change the Army. I don't think we need a large standing Army. I would like to see the Army go the route of the Marines and lower their overall numbers while raising their requirements and washout rate. Soldiers should be more like Rangers and less like Private Pile. I couldn't find an exact number, but a couple of sites list the Army around 548,000 soldiers, but only 204,000 in the Marine Corps.

If the Military went the route of a smaller, specialized, highly trained unit instead of a large, expensive, standing Army, it would cut costs and probably up the effectiveness. This would hinge on a shift in policy, away from occupation with bases around the world, to a QRF/Expeditionary force. I would build our military up to be able to react quickly anywhere in the world, but I would keep our troops at home.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't disagree Nate.

My beef is they make excuses why they won't cut spending and use scare tactics like "we'd have to screw people over on their social security" to justify it.

 

[maxiep]

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-peth...e-the-u-s-budget-it-did-it-in-under-a-minute/

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/how-to-cut-343-billion-from-the-federal-budget

 

[maxiep]

I think some miss the point of earmarks. It's true that they're a small part of the budget, but their effect is massive. These earmarks are often given in exchange for a vote on a specific piece of legislation. So, Ben Nelson's "Cornhusker Kickback" only cost $45MM, but his vote allowed an $871B to $3.2T bill to move forward.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think people miss the point of earmarks

They're not EXTRA spending, they're just directed spending of what's authorized.

 

[mook]

I'm torn, but I think I would lean towards recalling all our troops and closing our bases around the globe. If the world does not appreciate our help, then let our help cease to exist. That also goes for monetary help. We provide billions in aid around the globe (especially in Israel), and if that support is not appreciated, so be it.

I don't know that the world doesn't appreciate our help. There are a lot of people in Africa who don't have malaria or aren't dead from AIDS right now because of US aid. Just because they don't make the news doesn't mean they don't appreciate us.

Picking up our toys and going home just isn't an option. Everything we do has implication all around the globe just because of the sheer size of our economy. Isolationism is just refusing to recognize that fact until a crap load of people die (either on our shores or somebody else's.)

If we closed our bases in South Korea, for example, there's a decent chance of all-out war. Millions and millions dead. The economy would be a disaster. Japan would build a pretty scary high tech military that we might eventually have to contend with. All because we wanted to save a few billion bucks from our budget. It just doesn't seem worth it.

I'm nothing close to a warhawk. I opposed invading Iraq, and was extremely dubious about Afghanistan. I think we spend too much money on Israel. But I also recognize we have to have to be the world's policemen, because nobody else wants the job and somebody has to do it.

 

[Denny Crane]

Note I wasn't suggesting we bring all our troops home (yet). Just the ones in the two wars. I didn't suggest cutting military spending to the bone, but to a healthy $600B instead of $900B, which is considerable.

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't know that the world doesn't appreciate our help. There are a lot of people in Africa who don't have malaria or aren't dead from AIDS right now because of US aid. Just because they don't make the news doesn't mean they don't appreciate us.

Picking up our toys and going home just isn't an option. Everything we do has implication all around the globe just because of the sheer size of our economy. Isolationism is just refusing to recognize that fact until a crap load of people die (either on our shores or somebody else's.)

If we closed our bases in South Korea, for example, there's a decent chance of all-out war. Millions and millions dead. The economy would be a disaster. Japan would build a pretty scary high tech military that we might eventually have to contend with. All because we wanted to save a few billion bucks from our budget. It just doesn't seem worth it.

I'm nothing close to a warhawk. I opposed invading Iraq, and was extremely dubious about Afghanistan. I think we spend too much money on Israel. But I also recognize we have to have to be the world's policemen, because nobody else wants the job and somebody has to do it.

If we're going to be the worlds police, I would rather do so from the deck of a ship. I do not believe our forces need to be as vast as they currently are. I would rather have a powerful Navy and Air Force, with an elite group of special forces units that can react quickly to any situation around the world. The Navy is mobile, and could be dispatched anywhere. Bases are expensive, they take a lot of manpower, and most of them are in places that are not currently in conflict. Realistically, when are we going to get into another conventional war and with whom? I would rather have our Rangers, Delta, Green Berets, SEALs, PJs, and MARSOC taking care of the dirty work. They're experienced, highly trained, and intelligent warriors who get the job done.

If we need to muster another large force to fight against a conventional enemy, it can be done rather quickly.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I solved the deficit.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=vzxpbj14



my actual plan would be more fucked up. Basically cut all spending programs across the board, flat tax, no loopholes, cut all government assitance programs and let people fend for their own. unemployment and other benefits would be decimated as would spending for social programs.

 

[Natebishop3]

I solved the deficit.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=vzxpbj14



my actual plan would be more fucked up. Basically cut all spending programs across the board, flat tax, no loopholes, cut all government assitance programs and let people fend for their own. unemployment and other benefits would be decimated as would spending for social programs.

You should run for president

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Re: Re: You fix the budget

You should run for president

I actually am in 2012.

x

 

[MARIS61]

I already did this exercise.

1) Cut civilian and civilian/military workforce by 1M. Saves $125B
2) Completely repeal the Bush/Republican Medicare Prescription Drug Program. Saves $360B.
3) Bring the troops home and cut military spending by 1/3. Saves at least $300B.
4) Eliminate TARP spending, saves $368B.

This cuts the deficit to about $300B, which we can grow our way out of in 5 years if we hold the line on new spending.

Conservatives see their ox gored - military.
Liberals see their ox gored - prescription drug program.
The criminals see their ox gored - no more blank check/TARP.

No new taxes.

Seems unfair you left out the goring of a Libertarian Ox.

We're all in this together, right?

 

[MARIS61]

I solved the deficit.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=vzxpbj14



my actual plan would be more fucked up. Basically cut all spending programs across the board, flat tax, no loopholes, cut all government assitance programs and let people fend for their own. unemployment and other benefits would be decimated as would spending for social programs.

Better build yourself a reinforced bunker to live in, because when you tell people to "fend for their own" they'll most likely look to take yours.

 

[jlprk]

It's weird to see Republicans going through this exercise when they're the ones who want to extend the cause of the whole problem, the 10-year Republican tax cuts for the rich. Remember when Clinton solved the whole deficit problem, and had enormous surpluses going, which were growing exponentially each year? The Republicans then used that as an excuse to legislate the 10-year giveaway to the rich, which caused the current Depression.

Now we rank #1 in the world in per capita debt, while the other countries can afford to provide health insurance for their citizens. But hey, we're the richest country in the world (only if you include the top 2% of Americans).

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Re: Re: You fix the budget

Better build yourself a reinforced bunker to live in, because when you tell people to "fend for their own" they'll most likely look to take yours.

Uhhh they're doin it now...

x

 

[Denny Crane]

It's weird to see Republicans going through this exercise when they're the ones who want to extend the cause of the whole problem, the 10-year Republican tax cuts for the rich. Remember when Clinton solved the whole deficit problem, and had enormous surpluses going, which were growing exponentially each year? The Republicans then used that as an excuse to legislate the 10-year giveaway to the rich, which caused the current Depression.

Now we rank #1 in the world in per capita debt, while the other countries can afford to provide health insurance for their citizens. But hey, we're the richest country in the world (only if you include the top 2% of Americans).

I remember the government raking in huge sums off of taxes on capital gains during a stock market bubble. Bubbles are good, eh?

 

[Denny Crane]

Seems unfair you left out the goring of a Libertarian Ox.

We're all in this together, right?

The Libertarian Ox is being gored with huge government at all.

 

[jlprk]

I remember the government raking in huge sums off of taxes on capital gains during a stock market bubble. Bubbles are good, eh?

That bubble would be solar-sized by now if you guys hadn't popped it. All the experts (conservative and liberal) forecast the growth to be permanent, but then Bush was "elected" and the party ended. You would have made a lot more money from continued Clintonian stock growth than you did from measly Bushist tax cuts.

And this country would be totally out of debt by now, and thus the godlike economic ruler of the world. Meaning--even more profits for the American rich coming in from around the world. You guys really screwed up. You should have been for Gore.

 

[Denny Crane]

That bubble would be solar-sized by now if you guys hadn't popped it. All the experts (conservative and liberal) forecast the growth to be permanent, but then Bush was "elected" and the party ended. You would have made a lot more money from continued Clintonian stock growth than you did from measly Bushist tax cuts.

And this country would be totally out of debt by now, and thus the godlike economic ruler of the world. Meaning--even more profits for the American rich coming in from around the world. You guys really screwed up. You should have been for Gore.

The NASDAQ grew by 100% from September 1999 to March of 2000 and burst, falling by at least 50% in about 3 months. Bush didn't take office until January of 2001 and inherited the recession that followed all those high tech companies going out of business and the glut of high tech employees who lost their jobs accordingly.

The country would never be out of debt, no matter what kind of surpluses the government ran. The social security trust fund was buying debt with its surpluses, and thus the debt was paid down to a point but increasing no matter what.

NASDAQ

 

[Denny Crane]

I'd also point out that what burst the stock market bubble was people selling their stock all at once to pay their taxes on April 15.

Taxes good? LOL

 

[maxiep]

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issue...-Seat-Belts-an-Even-Tougher-Deficit-Plan.aspx

 

[jlprk]

Regardless of stocks temporarily falling in anticipation of Bush's election, the debt was falling at $200B per year under Clinton and was expected by consensus to fall $800B per year within 3-5 years. That would bring your red debt graph to zero by now. Stocks didn't make a comeback because Bush immediately gave away the surplus in his 10-year tax cut for the rich. The Depression that should have resulted from the decreased revenues was hidden by the housing bubble, financed by garbage (toilet) paper (derivatives).

The money you gained in that 10-year tax cut was shrimplike compared to the money you would have made had the stock market continued booming from the Clinton surpluses.

 

[hasoos]

I already did this exercise.

1) Cut civilian and civilian/military workforce by 1M. Saves $125B
2) Completely repeal the Bush/Republican Medicare Prescription Drug Program. Saves $360B.
3) Bring the troops home and cut military spending by 1/3. Saves at least $300B.
4) Eliminate TARP spending, saves $368B.

This cuts the deficit to about $300B, which we can grow our way out of in 5 years if we hold the line on new spending.

Conservatives see their ox gored - military.
Liberals see their ox gored - prescription drug program.
The criminals see their ox gored - no more blank check/TARP.

No new taxes.

So you really think that dumping 1 million people into the unemployed line helps the economy? We can cut a small amount of military hardware purchases for a year and make up the same amount, and leave those people employed and productive, and paying taxes, all the while, not defaulting on their home loans....

Oh yea dumping a million people into the unemployed line is a real good idea ....

 

[maxiep]

Regardless of stocks temporarily falling in anticipation of Bush's election, the debt was falling at $200B per year under Clinton and was expected by consensus to fall $800B per year within 3-5 years. That would bring your red debt graph to zero by now. Stocks didn't make a comeback because Bush immediately gave away the surplus in his 10-year tax cut for the rich. The Depression that should have resulted from the decreased revenues was hidden by the housing bubble, financed by garbage (toilet) paper (derivatives).

The money you gained in that 10-year tax cut was shrimplike compared to the money you would have made had the stock market continued booming from the Clinton surpluses.

This is the point where you should ask yourself when deficits started to decrease dramatically under Clinton and who controlled Congress. You should also ask yourself when the deficits started to increase dramatically under Bush and who controlled Congress.

 

[Denny Crane]

Regardless of stocks temporarily falling in anticipation of Bush's election, the debt was falling at $200B per year under Clinton and was expected by consensus to fall $800B per year within 3-5 years. That would bring your red debt graph to zero by now. Stocks didn't make a comeback because Bush immediately gave away the surplus in his 10-year tax cut for the rich. The Depression that should have resulted from the decreased revenues was hidden by the housing bubble, financed by garbage (toilet) paper (derivatives).

The money you gained in that 10-year tax cut was shrimplike compared to the money you would have made had the stock market continued booming from the Clinton surpluses.

They fell in anticipation of Bush's election? Seems to me if they fell for that sort of reason, it was the expectation of Al Bore being elected. But that's not very relevant since the stock market crashed at tax time, not when there was a clear frontrunner for the presidential election.

That red graph would have declined at least somewhat if the debt were actually declining, but it was increasing in spite of "surplusses" that the people you seem to rely on miscalculated because of the bubble.

The debt cannot be fully paid off, or even close to it. At least not for a while. The social security trust fund has been running a surplus since Reagan saved Social Security in the early 80s. Those surpluses were invested in the safest investments on the face of the earth - US Treasuries. When the govt. sells treasuries, it goes further into debt. Understand that?

 

[Denny Crane]

So you really think that dumping 1 million people into the unemployed line helps the economy? We can cut a small amount of military hardware purchases for a year and make up the same amount, and leave those people employed and productive, and paying taxes, all the while, not defaulting on their home loans....

Oh yea dumping a million people into the unemployed line is a real good idea ....

Dumping a million people on the unemployment line is not a good idea. Dumping them NOT on the unemployment line, so they sink or swim is a good idea. Last time we did that, companies like Google were founded and grew. Why? Because instead of taking 99 weeks of unemployment benefits so generous they don't encourage people to seek work, people get creative about having to work for a living. Be it finding a job or pitching in with others and starting a business.

 

[Denny Crane]

This is the point where you should ask yourself when deficits started to decrease dramatically under Clinton and who controlled Congress. You should also ask yourself when the deficits started to increase dramatically under Bush and who controlled Congress.

I give Clinton a huge amount of credit for the balanced budgets, but it was not entirely his doing. What he could control, he did. He let government employment shrink through attrition, saving huge amounts of cashflow.

And to be fair, the republicans and Bush spent money like drunken sailors. Discretionary spending on just about everything and every social program increased by at least 50% under their watch.

Hey barfo, how many private sector workers do you have to tax to pay the salary of one public sector worker?

 

[barfo]

Hey barfo, how many private sector workers do you have to tax to pay the salary of one public sector worker?

Well, it depends. How much income do the private sector workers have, and at what rate do you tax it? And what is the salary of that one public sector worker?

And where does the tax that public sector workers pay go? Doesn't count?

barfo